Author: Vrinda Bhardwaj, O.P Jindal Global University
To the Point
The goal of the UCC is to establish a single legal framework for civil matters by replacing the earlier existing personal laws followed by the people of different religions. While it promises gender justice and national unity through a single set of secular civil laws, it also raises concerns about homogenising India’s culturally diverse society. At its core, it is a complex constitutional challenge to ensure equality in a democracy without eradicating its diversity.
Use of Legal Jargon
The term Uniform Civil Code (UCC) refers to a single set of civil laws governing all citizens irrespective of their religion or community, especially in personal law matters like marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance and succession.
So Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy states that the state should focus on securing a UCC for the citizens of this country which is the main legislation for UCC.
Hence, implementing the UCC can raise issues of constitutional morality, judicial review, legislative competence and intersectional equality especially gender equality which the country direly needs under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Proof
India’s legal system today is based on a dual structure as one is based on secular laws applicable to all and another on religious personal laws. For example:
Hindus follow the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Muslims follow the Shariat (Application) Act, 1937, which recognises Islamic principles for matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
Christians and Parsis have their own personal laws.
In the end, citizens are treated differently under law based on their religion, especially in matters involving women’s rights.
The Law Commission of India’s 2018 Consultation Paper on the UCC declared it “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage” but pushed for reforming discriminatory aspects of personal laws instead. The recent UCC Bill passed by the Uttarakhand government in 2024 has also again started the national debate on the issue.
Abstract
This article examines the legal, political, and social implications of the Uniform Civil Code in India. It explores how the UCC can serve as an instrument of gender justice and equality, but also risks being misused to erase religious diversity. The article unpacks constitutional provisions, major case laws, legislative history, and current developments to assess whether the UCC is a tool for reform or not. Ultimately, it argues that while the UCC may be a constitutional aspiration, its implementation must respect India’s pluralism, relying on consensus rather than compulsion on the citizens.
Case Laws
1. Shah Bano v. Union of India (1985) AIR 945
Facts: Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband who refused to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that under Muslim Personal Law, he was only liable to provide for her during the iddat period (a waiting period after divorce).
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Section 125 of the CrPC, being a secular provision, applies to all citizens irrespective of religion. In the end, she was granted maintenance.
Legal Significance: The case established that personal laws could not override secular legislation, especially in the matter of fundamental rights. However, the political backlash from conservative Muslim groups led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which effectively reversed the Court’s ruling.
Impact: This case brought the UCC into light and exposed the tensions between religious orthodoxy and women’s rights. It highlighted how gender justice can be sacrificed for the sake of vote-bank politics.
2. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) AIR 1531
Facts: Hindu men had converted to Islam to marry second wives without divorcing their first wives, which is illegal under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but permitted under Muslim Personal Law. The issue was whether such conversions were bona fide or a legal loophole to bypass monogamy.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the conversions were not genuine and that the second marriages were void. The Court stated that such conversions were a fraud on the law and called for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code to prevent such legal manipulation.
Legal Significance: This judgment is a strong judicial endorsement of the UCC. It showed that in a secular republic, personal laws should not let people escape justice, especially when it leads to gender-based exploitation.
3. John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003) 6 SCC 611
Facts: The petitioner, a Christian priest, challenged Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which restricted Christians from making charitable bequests through wills unless certain conditions were met. He argued that this was discriminatory.
Judgment: The Supreme Court declared the provision unconstitutional for violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Equality. The Court once again stressed the need for a Uniform Civil Code to uphold civil equality due to inequalities in personal law.
Legal Significance: Although not directly linked to marriage or divorce but this case supported the idea of legal uniformity and secularism in the context of community-specific laws.
4. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 189
Facts: The case challenged the constitutionality of Section 497 IPC which criminalised adultery and treated women as a property of their husbands.
Judgment: The Supreme Court unanimously decriminalised adultery by giving out a judgement that it violated Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 21 (personal liberty). The Court ruled that the state had no right or business regulating consensual private relationships among adults.
Legal Significance: While not a personal law case per se but it does represent the judiciary’s evolving approach towards gender justice, individual autonomy, and constitutional morality which are the essential principles involved in the UCC debate.
5. Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740
Facts: The petitioner challenged the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which was enacted after the Shah Bano backlash. It was argued that the Act restricted the right to maintenance for Muslim women.
Judgment: The Supreme Court interpreted the law in a way that preserved the right to fair maintenance, stating that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to a reasonable and fair provision even beyond the iddat period.
Legal Significance: This case reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to gender justice despite some restrictions out forward through personal laws.
Conclusion
The Uniform Civil Code is a confusing matter of debate between the constitutional vision of equality versus the political reality. Its promise of equality before the law, especially for women and marginalised groups is extremely important and appealing for a country like India which is in dire need of it. However, its implementation in a deeply pluralistic and diverse society like India requires more than just a legislative act as it also requires social consensus and sensitivity because a thing so personal to communities cannot be changed in an insensitive manner and nor can it be forcefully imposed upon people without their will as it would cause a massive backlash in a country like India.
The legal precedents show that India’s judiciary has leaned toward reform by interpreting personal laws in a way that upholds constitutional rights. But the legislature has often hesitated due to fear of electoral backlash and resistance from religious communities. The politicisation of UCC especially when pushed by majoritarian narratives has only deepened suspicions.
Therefore, a reform-based approach like revising discriminatory personal laws and promoting common civil remedies might be more pragmatic than imposing a single code. True uniformity lies not in sameness but in equal protection and respect for all identities under the law.
FAQS
1. What is the main aim of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?
To provide a set of common civil laws that apply equally to all citizens of India, ensuring fairness and uniformity in matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption.
2. Does the Indian Constitution make UCC mandatory?
No. UCC is part of Directive Principles (Article 44), which are not enforceable but guide the state in law-making.
3. Why are personal laws different for different communities?
India’s legal system recognises the cultural and religious diversity of its people. Personal laws reflect community practices, though many are outdated and discriminatory, especially toward women.
4. Is UCC anti-minority?
Not inherently. However, if implemented without consultation or sensitivity, it can be perceived as majoritarian. A balanced UCC must respect all religious identities while ensuring constitutional values.
5. How can UCC empower women?
Many personal laws, especially in inheritance and divorce, are biased against women. A UCC could guarantee equal treatment regardless of gender or religion.
6. Why did the Supreme Court call for a UCC?
In cases like Sarla Mudgal and Shah Bano, the Court noted that inconsistent personal laws lead to legal loopholes and gender injustice, and hence supported a common code.
7. What is the status of UCC in Indian states?
Uttarakhand passed a UCC in 2024. Other states like Gujarat and Assam are exploring it. However, no national-level UCC has been enacted yet.
8. Can religious freedom and UCC coexist?
Yes, if the UCC governs only civil aspects and not rituals or religious practices, it can co-exist with freedom of religion under Article 25.
